The Chronicles of Narcissist

[Ovinomancer]

He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK. He is potentially being punished for saying those words.

Yes, it is censorship. They would refuse to allow him to enter the country and speak based on what he has said and intends to say. That's pretty clearly censorship. You yourself admit it in that last sentence: he's potentially being punished by government for saying those words. That's censorship. "You can't say that or we'll punish you." Actually, that's censorship regardless of if the government's the actor or not, it's just not legally censorship unless it's the government.

Now, that said, that may be no big thing. I happen to think it is, mainly because I'm vehemently against hate speech laws, but you can disagree. And the UK is free to interpret it's laws however it wants to, up to and including censoring people.

Those are not the same thing. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.

Oh, good grief. Of course it's not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences of speaking freely. No one said it was. It is, however, a guarantee of freedom from government caused consequences of speaking freely. If the people of the UK want to show up and shout down Trump wherever he goes, or say mean things about him, or call their American friends and ask them to not vote for the blowhard, they can do that and those would be Trump receiving the consequences of his free speech. If the government acts to prevent or punish his speech, even and including prohibiting him entry based on his speech, that's censorship and free speech is supposed to protect you from that.

 

[Istbor]

He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK. He is potentially being punished for saying those words.

Those are not the same thing. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.

I have to agree. It isn't like they are bringing him in with the intention of cutting out anything they don't like hearing. He is free to speak as much as he likes, about whatever he likes, just not allowed to go to the UK.

Plus, it's their country, US notions of free speech don't necessarily have the same meaning outside of the US.

 

[Morlock]

No, that's still a problem with free speech. It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.' That's textbook censorship.

Now, you may think it's justified, and that's fine, doesn't change it. Also, the UK really doesn't have very strong free speech protections (they have protections, just not strong ones like the US), so this isn't a legal issue for them at all. Given the scope of denying foreigners admission, the US doesn't have much of a problem legally with similar actions either (we forbid people from entering on much flimsier rationals than just what they've said). But it's still not in the spirit of free speech to censor someone based on what they say.

UK's not really big on freedom. They do have us beat in the aggressive free press department, though. They put our leftist corporate media to shame.

Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.

Don't worry, nobody would ever mistake the UK for a country that does.

 

[delericho]

How many times do I have to clearly state that my post wasn't intended to restrict or constrain discussion in any way, but to merely counter the statement that consideration of censoring isn't a free speech problem (it clearly is, after all, it's talking about whether or not censoring is a good thing in context)?

Once more?

Nah, I kid - I think we're in a circle of constantly clarifying positions that we each understand.

 

[Umbran]

Plus, it's their country, US notions of free speech don't necessarily have the same meaning outside of the US.

More accurately, our notions of free speech don't have the same applicability outside the US. Our First Amendment simply does not apply to the action of another government within its own borders.

But, I'll disagree with Danny - it is a form of censorship.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, it is censorship.

No, it most certainly isn't.

He is free to have his message broadcast into the UK. He can buy space in the local press or time on the television or radio. His Internet presence is not being curtailed in the UK, so all his words may be freely disseminated via his website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

His message can be spread by proxies.

His message is free to enter the UK. His physical presence may not be.

It is, however, a guarantee of freedom from government caused consequences of speaking freely...

No it isn't. There are all kinds of government caused consequences to speech- being arrested and doing time for incitement to violence/breach of peace is but one.

Being barred from entry or being deported is also a potential consequence. German Ernst Zündel was deported from the USA- and later, from Canada- at least in part due to his Neo-Nazi hate speech. (Some of what he said was deemed to be incitement.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it most certainly isn't.

He is free to have his message broadcast into the UK. He can buy space in the local press or time on the television or radio. His Internet presence is not being curtailed in the UK, so all his words may be freely disseminated via his website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

His message can be spread by proxies.

His message is free to enter the UK. His physical presence may not be.

Restricting a venue is still censorship.

For instance, banning content from broadcast TV while saying that you can still get it on DVD is censorship. It removes your access to venues.

No it isn't. There are all kinds of government caused consequences to speech- being arrested and doing time for incitement to violence/breach of peace is but one.

Generally it's actions coupled with speech, but, yes, you're right, the government goes punish that. It's still censorship, though, even if it's legalized censorship. I've never claimed that any censorship is always bad -- in fact I've pointed out that there's no such thing as absolute free speech anywhere.

Being barred from entry or being deported is also a potential consequence. German Ernst Zündel was deported from the USA- and later, from Canada- at least in part due to his Neo-Nazi hate speech. (Some of what he said was deemed to be incitement.)

Yep, and that was censorship. This isn't a value call, it's naming something what it is.

 

[Umbran]

No, it most certainly isn't.

I have to disagree, Danny. I'll give a somewhat extreme (but *not* hypothetical) example to illustrate the point...

My family has friends (who have since passed away) who, back in the days of the Soviet Union, were sent to gulags for speaking out. By their accounts, out in Siberia, the guards really couldn't care what they said anymore... so, their actual speech wasn't restricted, was it? They could speak all they want! This, of course, is nonsense - sending them to a gulag for speaking out was assuredly censorship.

In terms of raw logic, the only real difference is the area. Trump is banned from England, and can move about and speak wherever he wants otherwise. The area my family friends were banned form was... everything not in the gulag. How large does the area need to be before we figure it isn't censorship?

Note, "Trump can be broadcast" is an effect of his privileged position. It doesn't apply to most people. Are you going to argue that what counts as censorship be defined relative to what the subject can manage to work around by dint of his or her personal power?

 

[Janx]

I have to disagree, Danny. I'll give a somewhat extreme (but *not* hypothetical) example to illustrate the point...

My family has friends (who have since passed away) who, back in the days of the Soviet Union, were sent to gulags for speaking out. By their accounts, out in Siberia, the guards really couldn't care what they said anymore... so, their actual speech wasn't restricted, was it? They could speak all they want! This, of course, is nonsense - sending them to a gulag for speaking out was assuredly censorship.

In terms of raw logic, the only real difference is the area. Trump is banned from England, and can move about and speak wherever he wants otherwise. The area my family friends were banned form was... everything not in the gulag. How large does the area need to be before we figure it isn't censorship?

Note, "Trump can be broadcast" is an effect of his privileged position. It doesn't apply to most people. Are you going to argue that what counts as censorship be defined relative to what the subject can manage to work around by dint of his or her personal power?

I dunno. What happened to your family is terrible. It's censorship and more wrongity wrongness.

That does not mean Trump's new blacklisting is anywhere near the same thing. That'd be like using a Holocaust example on something far less than 6 million people being killed.

Umbran's family lost the right to speak in their own country and were imprisoned in their own country for what they said. This was done to them by their own leaders.

Trump has lost the right to visit a country he is not from. He still has freedom of movement and speech in his own country.

Another country has the right to choose not to listen or accept a non-citizen. That right trumps his "freedom of speech" because it is their country, not his. As they say, your rights end where mine begin. At the Nation level, that's the border.

The decision to block a foreigner like that might not be a good one, but it's not the same as a country blocking its own people. It's a different sin.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, that's still a problem with free speech. It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.' That's textbook censorship.

I'm not sure why you condamn censorship as you're ok with it when it hurts people's feelings, like on EW. Trump was a steamroller that hurt many feelings.